Why are you an atheist?

[Ranger Genius]

<heroic restraint>Must.....not...post...to this piece...of...shit...thread.......must not.....</heroic restraint>

Isn't "insomniac's dream" an oxymoron, anyway?

[Ron]

Don't like the thread? Why don't you do everyone a favor and don't post to it?

I know, it's hard to imagine that we might be OK without your stellar wit and astute observations, but believe me, we'll manage. Somehow...

Ron

[Sensei]

Why don't you do everyone a favor and don't post to it?

* opens door *
People, people, people... Please, for the love of Larry, let's not try to speak for 'everyone', m'kay? You'll only end up looking like a fool.

And this thread still stinks to high heaven.
* slams door *

[lowlandr]

Note to self, never post while drinking(I knew that already!).
Please excuse/ignore my comments, the devil made me do it

[theCryptofishist]

Because if there were a god he would have smote this thread good by now.

[Ron]

Because if there were a god he would have smote this thread good by now.

OK, that's some funny shit, right there. :)

Ron

[Sensei]

And I should point out that you, Mr. Ron, have made what I thought were some very thoughtful and insighful posts in this very thread. The very same thread that still stinks like a rotting fish, but those were some nice posts just the same.

I'm just a snarky bastard. Think of it as my religion.

[EvilDustBooger]

[Rockdad]

You'll be able to spot me, I sound like barney fife on acid gettin paid by the syllable...

LOL But spot you what does Barney on acid getting paid by the syllable look like anyhoe <--misspell left on porpoise

[Ron]

....
I'm just a snarky bastard. Think of it as my religion.

Thank you sir, and it's those kind of religions that I tend to tip me hat to.

Ron

[the fire elf]

from 2nd person perspective (looking at an inmate) the la county jail wristband marks the right side, their id cards hold headshots where the background shows through leaving a mark on the forehead, and you can't purchase anything from the store without those identifying marks

[the fire elf]

Shankaracharya speaks of "the magician, the mayavin who throws a cord up into the air, and armed, climbs up it, beyond the range of sight, to enter into battle and be dismembered; after his bodily parts have fallen to the ground, he is seen to rise up again and there is no concern over thinking about the reality of the magic trick that has been performed."

[SED]

Shankaracharya speaks of "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah has been performed."

[SED]

Not that it proves a damn thing, but...

Mon Jun 5, 8:31 AM ET

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

----

Lions: 100, Christians: 0

Evolution 1
Intelligent Design 0

Perhaps it was the lion who was intelligently designed.

[dana]

....
Is scientific "proof" the only kind of proof you can accept in your reality?

Only when the question is what's True. But as I've been saying from the beginning, I don't believe spirituality or personal belief is about Truth and attempting to make is so can be a rough path for everyone.

Ron

Ron if that were really true, your life would be quite strange and tedious, if you tried to confirm everything you held to be true by first checking to see if it were scientifically verifiable. Don't you also have emotional truths, metaphysical truths, psychological truths, certain "truths" which we hold "to be self evident", and other truths that you were given by family and society, etc.? (One of the underlying questions to this thread is phenomenology - how do we decide what is real and true? It's a great question!)

Even when it comes to scientific "truths", it's not nearly as solid as one might suppose. Sure the gross phenomena are solid and I don't see anyone calling that into question here. But I can think of several areas of scientific enquiry that have all kinds of latitude - including subatomic/theoretical physics and neuro research. While much of it is nailed down, there are huge areas that are hardly immutable truth. The really juicy and interesting stuff is merely subject to observation, speculation and theory - hardly truth per se. Take placebo effect and psychosomatic illness for example. Well accepted, but science is far from explaining how belief can create physiologic and biochemical changes. Should we pretend it doesn't exist because the whole idea is too complex?

I get it that what is true for you is what is most easily demonstrable and readily agreed upon by the masses. Simplicity definitely has it's appeal. And surely that will provide an easier "path for everyone". But kind of boring when it comes down to it. Personally I've found that the rough paths, of all sorts, are generally the most fruitful.

Here's a metaphysical truth for you to chew on - If you argue for your own limitations, they will be yours.

[dana]

Not that it proves a damn thing, but...

Mon Jun 5, 8:31 AM ET

KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

----

Lions: 100, Christians: 0

Evolution 1
Intelligent Design 0

Perhaps it was the lion who was intelligently designed.

I'm sure that at least one other person picked up on this: The guy was desperate to find out whether God really exists.
He found that proof one way or the other.

Either everything went blank.... or he found God.

[LeChatNoir]

My brother once stated to me:

“There is no such thing as the supernatural… only natural phenomena we have yet to explain”.

He and I agree on this… and we are both very spiritual people.

[Kinetic IV]

Truth?
http://tinyurl.com/pemz2

It's all a matter of perception.

[LeChatNoir]

Truth?
http://tinyurl.com/pemz2

It's all a matter of perception.

So true...

[dana]

My brother once stated to me:

“There is no such thing as the supernatural… only natural phenomena we have yet to explain”.

He and I agree on this… and we are both very spiritual people.

I agree too. But trying to explain some things gives me a major brain fart.

[LeChatNoir]

I agree too. But trying to explain some things gives me a major brain fart.

I agree... And perhaps therein lies the problem. As KIV pointed out... truth is subjective, and so trying to express a self-evident point of view to another, though sometimes effective in part, is ultimately futile. I prefer to just live and try and figure it out as it pertains to my perspective, rather than always explain it to others. And yet occasionally I like to take it out of my head and look at it... toss it to others and let them state what they see.

I think that's a healthy exercise that one should do with one's self and others on occasion... make sure you're in a groove rather than a rut (to borrow from Rush).

[LeChatNoir]

Not to mention that we may be trying to explain something that we, as an individual, might emotionally understand very keenly, but intellectually understand very little... if at all.

[dana]

I agree too. But trying to explain some things gives me a major brain fart.

I agree... And perhaps therein lies the problem. As KIV pointed out... truth is subjective, and so trying to express a self-evident point of view to another, though sometimes effective in part, is ultimately futile. I prefer to just live and try and figure it out as it pertains to my perspective, rather than always explain it to others. And yet occasionally I like to take it out of my head and look at it... toss it to others and let them state what they see.

I think that's a healthy exercise that one should do with one's self and others on occasion... make sure you're in a groove rather than a rut (to borrow from Rush).

Oh, don't get me going!

And don't you wish that the eplaya were somehow more conducive (and resembled the real playa in that way)? Take this thread for instance. I read the first page and then got in at the last, and I thought - "cool. Interesting thread. Jump in. Why not." I assumed that the interesting crunchy outside held a deliscious creamy inside. Then I started looking at the rest of it after making my first posts. Yikes!! Not creamy - more putrefactive! Some people's capacity to argue endlessly is truly amazing. But in between the totally wierd parts were some nice (soft stated posts) like from Mojo, Gingher and Cowboy.
What's the answer? Ignore the people who seem more interested in a pointless arguement? (And I'm not claiming to be completely immune from that self absorbed tendency at times.)

[LeChatNoir]

What's the answer? Ignore the people who seem more interested in a pointless arguement?

Well... I don't know... I think there's a little something to be learned from every post in here. When you ignore completely, you may well ignore some bit of information that would be of help to the "truth" of your current perspective.

The eplaya is a curious thing... seemingly endless argument is often just another game to be a part of. Though, tempers seem to flair easier on eplaya (and other similar forms of communication) as opposed to face to face expression. But nuggets of creamy soft insides come out easier too, sometimes.

Funny, huh?

What's the answer?

Relative to debates here? I think maybe read as much as you wish and take all you read with a grain of salt. Even your own posts... because your own truth should probably be evolving as the years go by. After all... it is all subjective.

But then again, that's only one of my answers.

[dana]

What's the answer? Ignore the people who seem more interested in a pointless arguement?

Well... I don't know... I think there's a little something to be learned from every post in here. When you ignore completely, you may well ignore some bit of information that would be of help to the "truth" of your current perspective.

The eplaya is a curious thing... seemingly endless argument is often just another game to be a part of. Though, tempers seem to flair easier on eplaya (and other similar forms of communication) as opposed to face to face expression. But nuggets of creamy soft insides come out easier too, sometimes.

Funny, huh?

True enough! When I went back to work just now the idea that popped into my head was that I had to admit in the past I have definitely stood in Rob, Ron and Ranger Genius' shoes (well sorta) and have said "OK, this person's belief is total bullshit. No doubt about it!" And you can make a case for it. Then I find myself sometimes these days off on some wild-ass spiritual venture that I know I would never be able to explain in a million years (much less "prove"). But I find a realness that goes beyond anything I would have thought possible. So I make a case for that, to myself (at least.)
And I think that was why I was interested in this thread. I was curious how I had gotten to here... from there.

[Davoid]

Shankaracharya speaks of "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah has been performed."

Until God steps forward, it looks like it falls to us stupid mortals to do the judging.

[Ron]

....
Is scientific "proof" the only kind of proof you can accept in your reality?

Only when the question is what's True. But as I've been saying from the beginning, I don't believe spirituality or personal belief is about Truth and attempting to make is so can be a rough path for everyone.

Ron

Ron if that were really true, your life would be quite strange and tedious, if you tried to confirm everything you held to be true by first checking to see if it were scientifically verifiable.

Sure, that's why I said only when the question is what's True. As you point out there are all kinds of truth out there, by using the capital I'm talking about objective, verifiable, truth that exists independent of our perceptions. It's only one flavor of the truth pie, isn't always the most important one, and can only reliably be gotten to by cheating in various ways, IMHO.

So if one wants to know what's True one has to start by forming a question one can answer. That's the first layer of cheating. For example if you want to know how old something is that you've dug out of the ground you don't ask, "how old is it?" because we have no way of knowing. However we can ask questions like "how far down was it buried, how many carbon 18 atoms can we count," and so on and all of those can lead us to an evolving understanding of how old the thing is.

Next you've got to cheat by understanding your margin of error. As you said our scientific knowledge is never perfect and so we'll never get an exact Truthful answer to our question. Instead we have to work to reduce that margin over time, even if it'll never get to zero.

And that brings up the third layer of cheating, iteration. One stab at the Truth is almost never enough, it takes multiple attempts informed by past failures. And even that's not enough cheating. Next we need to add repeatability.

In order to get to the Truth the next person has to be able to do the same thing the first person did and get the same results. That's a lot of cheating involved just to figure out how fast an object falls, within a certain range of error, but it's what's needed to get to Truth, in my world view.

Now Truth is a bit of an illusionary goal. I don't need Truth about falling objects to get out of the way of the plummeting tree branch falling toward my head, nor to know it hurts to fall off high things myself. And I can't use that cheating process to answer all questions. In fact it won't work for most of the ones that are really important. And that's cool.

The determination of what's True is often irrelevant to the question at hand, IMHO. For example, we all agree it's impossible to know if there Truly is a god, and if so what shape such god might take, yes? Instead of looking for Truth in such issues I suggest looking for satisfaction. What answer makes your life better, makes you a better version of you? Take it and run, and don't worry about Truth, I'd say. :)

Don't you also have emotional truths, metaphysical truths, psychological truths, certain "truths" which we hold "to be self evident", and other truths that you were given by family and society, etc.?

Sure but they are all truths, not Truths. Make sense? :)

... While much of it is nailed down, there are huge areas that are hardly immutable truth.

In fact one of the precepts of scientific thought is that there are no immutable truths, only the weight of evidence and multiple observations. That's one of the big differences between spiritual and scientific thought. Those with faith reach end answers, those without only refine their understandings and are (theoretically) ready to abandon those understandings in the face of better data.

Well accepted, but science is far from explaining how belief can create physiologic and biochemical changes. Should we pretend it doesn't exist because the whole idea is too complex?

Nope. But we shouldn't pretend we understand what's happening based on spiritual, emotional, psychological, or experience based truth either. :)

I get it that what is true for you is what is most easily demonstrable and readily agreed upon by the masses.

Well then you get pretty wrong. ;) What I think is true is based on what works for me and bears no resemblance to most any of the views held by the majority, either here in North America or the rest of the world.

Simplicity definitely has it's appeal. And surely that will provide an easier "path for everyone". But kind of boring when it comes down to it. Personally I've found that the rough paths, of all sorts, are generally the most fruitful.

To each their own. I'm not judging your path but the judgments your throwing on mine demonstrate a massive lack of understanding of my position. And one that's pretty common among theists. "Oh, your world must be so boring without faith..." Nope, just the opposite but it's amazing how many theists seem to have to clutch that misunderstanding.

Here's a metaphysical truth for you to chew on - If you argue for your own limitations, they will be yours.

Nothing metaphysical about that at all. :)

Ron

[Ron]

...True enough! When I went back to work just now the idea that popped into my head was that I had to admit in the past I have definitely stood in Rob, Ron and Ranger Genius' shoes (well sorta) and have said "OK, this person's belief is total bullshit. No doubt about it!"

Um, those aren't my shoes. And the fact that you'd think they were shows how little I'm getting across about my position. It's not about what is and isn't bullshit, in fact that question is broken when it comes to this issue, IMHO. But again it is a common misunderstanding theists come up with. It's starting to make me think it's some kind of meme immune system responce....


Ron

[SED]

Until God steps forward, it looks like it falls to us stupid mortals to do the judging.

Indeed. Among the mortals, it is the stupid ones who believe it falls to them to do the judging.

[dana]

In fact one of the precepts of scientific thought is that there are no immutable truths, only the weight of evidence and multiple observations. That's one of the big differences between spiritual and scientific thought. Those with faith reach end answers, those without only refine their understandings and are (theoretically) ready to abandon those understandings in the face of better data.

Ron

Ron, I like most of your responses, but this one is clearly your own prejudice. Why would you assume that the spiritual person is not able to do the same thing and change their understanding and belief as they go along? I have already laid out the difference between faith and belief, with a clear preference for belief.
I'm curious what your definition of spirituality is?

(I'll have to wait for your answer. Time to go kayaking.... and ponder the existence of God some more. And hopefully not the same way the guy with the lion did. Been there, done that!!)